Next to no information on the internet
about the next Air Force heavy bomber that's in the works. About all I've found out is that it's under development and suppose to enter service in 2018. I've heard rumor that it's going to replace the BUFF and I've also heard that it'll be replacing the B-1B and B-2. I want more information, preliminary designs and capabilities. Don't go mentioning Aurora, it doesn't exist.
0
-
Yee-haw! More money on more crap that won't work for a mission we won't permit against an enemy we no longer face! Boo-yah!
Just more bull$#!t from the flyboys doing their damnedest to justify their budgets at our expense.[:(!]0 -
Cat...keep your nose clean and bust ass on CDCs, learn as much as you can about the airframe, including avionics, reenlist and make staff. Maybe one day you'll be invited to take a job, without any details, in an unknown location, site unseen. Simple "Yes/No" due by COB.[;)] You'll then have some answers,But you won't be able to share. and a whole lot more questions, that you won't be able to ask.[:D] 0 -
The B2 is nothing but a showboat.
There is only 20 in existance.0 -
And those 20 dropped more tonnage during EF than any other platform.
There are many, many advanced weapons platforms that are classified. And they are classified for very good reasons.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Old Fool
And those 20 dropped more tonnage during EF than any other platform.
There are many, many advanced weapons platforms that are classified. And they are classified for very good reasons.
You're wasting your time. The average person has yet to develop a clear understanding of what modern air power is capable of. They base opinions on the way things were decades ago and think that if you're not preparing to fight the next war in the same manner as the last you're wasting funds.
Thank God Norman Schwarzkopf had a solid grasp of reality. Desert Storm was the most decisive military victory in history thanks to a couple of decades of forward thinking air power.0 -
quote:Originally posted by catpealer111
about the next Air Force heavy bomber that's in the works. About all I've found out is that it's under development and suppose to enter service in 2018. I've heard rumor that it's going to replace the BUFF and I've also heard that it'll be replacing the B-1B and B-2. I want more information, preliminary designs and capabilities. Don't go mentioning Aurora, it doesn't exist.
Try this ...
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/b-3.htm0 -
quote:Originally posted by Txs
quote:Originally posted by Old Fool
And those 20 dropped more tonnage during EF than any other platform.
There are many, many advanced weapons platforms that are classified. And they are classified for very good reasons.
You're wasting your time. The average person has yet to develop a clear understanding of what modern air power is capable of. They base opinions on the way things were decades ago and think that if you're not preparing to fight the next war in the same manner as the last you're wasting funds.
Thank God Norman Schwarzkopf had a solid grasp of reality. Desert Storm was the most decisive military victory in history thanks to a couple of decades of forward thinking air power.
Other than the F-117a, none of the planes used in Desert Storm were cutting edge technology. Neither the B-1B nor the B-2 were used in that war, but plenty of A-6 Intruders and A-10 Warthogs were.
My question is why develop a new bomber whose capabilities will be marginally better at best? The B-1B and B-2 are fantastic pieces of equipment, as is the B-52, but neither the B-1B nor the B-2 have been used to their fullest, in my opinion.
And if they have and we just don't know it, well, I'm kind of curious as to why it is we need a multi-billion dollar aircraft to deliver ordinance against people without any sort of credible antiaircraft capabilities.
On another note, I think modern warfare has shown what airpower is capable of and, if anything, people have a tendency to overestimate its capabilities. After all, an over-reliance on air power is exactly what got Israel into trouble last year in Lebanon.0 -
Cat -
I don't want to slime in your hat, but can you say:"U-A-V" ??
Doug0 -
quote:Originally posted by ElMuertoMonkey
...I'm kind of curious as to why it is we need a multi-billion dollar aircraft to deliver ordinance against people without any sort of credible antiaircraft capabilities.That's an example of preparing to fight the previous war, which is precisely what doomed Saddam's forces long before Desert Storm began. They amassed an enormous armor and artillery force, expecting us to fight the same as Iran. We completely nullified these forces by not fighting their war.
quote:On another note, I think modern warfare has shown what airpower is capable of and, if anything, people have a tendency to overestimate its capabilities. After all, an over-reliance on air power is exactly what got Israel into trouble last year in Lebanon.The only significant ground battle of Desert Storm was at Khafji, where thousands of Republican Guard troops and hundreds of armored vehicles moved against a much smaller Marine force under cover of darkness. We had a J-STARS aircraft on station that detected this movement as soon as they left their defensive positions. In addition to directing hundreds of A10, AC130, F16, AV8 and F/A18 sorties, J-STARS identified and supplied the coordinates of each Iraqi armored vehicle in the area to those Marine units on the ground. At the height of this battle Republican Guard units were losing an armored vehicle every 30 seconds to either the Marines or our aircraft.
Our ground elements did an outstanding job and could've very possibly defeated these forces head-to-head. However our use of this "cutting edge technology" to complement our other forces reduced what was intended to be their major thrust of the war to a short lived action the average American only vaguely recalls. Due to it's classified nature at the time, the role this aircraft played in the largest engagement of the war went relatively unnoticed
It's a historical fact since military aircraft have existed that whoever controls the air wins the war and we've stayed ahead of the curve since WWII. Notice how long it's been since any US ground forces have been lost to enemy aircraft? These air power dollars aren't for toys. They'll translate into fewer ground casualties when the shooting inevitably starts in the coming decades.0 -
that sounds about right. 0 -
The Aurora is not real!?!?!?
I'm shocked. The first time I read about it's capability was from the Wall Street Journal 15 years ago.
15 years and it's still the best kept known secret!0 -
Congress wanted the AF to build a UAV Bomber.....AF got mad and stomped away with plans to not listen to Congress.
it'll be junk or be a politically driven pos.0 -
quote:Originally posted by ObiWan
Congress wanted the AF to build a UAV Bomber.....AF got mad and stomped away with plans to not listen to Congress.
it'll be junk or be a politically driven pos.
Aw crud not another M-16 kinda thing0 -
Worse:
http://www.air-attack.com/page/26/FB-22-Fighter-Bomber.html
The dumbest idea possible.....take a F-22 and make it a little bigger and much uglier.
With all of those old/excess military planes sitting in that Arizona desert....get them flyable...make them remote controlled....load with bombs....fly over enemy country...drop bombs....crash plane into enemy.
Repeat until all old planes are gone.0 -
quote:Originally posted by ObiWan
Congress wanted the AF to build a UAV Bomber.....AF got mad and stomped away with plans to not listen to Congress.Could be because this is already being addressed in a more efficient manner than building a large long range unmanned bomber.
USAF has a had their own "UAV bomber" concept in the works for several years now. As a fuel saving measure to maximize munitions and recon gear payload it's to be ferried within range of the target area by a manned aircraft, then launched under the control of it's crew. After doing it's job on target with JDAM's or missiles it will be landed at a forward base, then recovered and transported back to it's home base for re-use. Multiple vehicles of this type can be launched on a mission, with some conducting electronic spoofing, decoying or actual anti-ground to air defense for the others.
Due to it's small size and lower unit cost it's more along the lines of a reusable multi-role cruise missile than a large, dedicated UAV bomber.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
15 comments